Ping Cam - An interesting article about the Schiavo Case

[Axxon]

Since I know you've been following the case:

Schiavo clash rooted in money. (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/23/Tampabay/Schiavo_clash_is_root.shtml)

This sure puts a spin on these God fearing, just looking out for Terri's wellbeing parents doesn't it? Wasn't it you who said that Michael was only doing this for the money; the money that's all but gone?

I believe Judge Greer said it best.



"It is clear to this court that (the argument) was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his ... award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler," Greer wrote. "Regretably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides."

This helps explains why the courts won't decide for the Schindlers. It's not about Terri's well being or wishes at all.

This being said, and even though I support Michaels decision I really can't support starvation as the method of ending someones life. It's a screwed up situation and I weep for Terri. Who knows what really might have been had money not poisoned those around her.

What I find more screwed up is the legislature bowing to pressure from people who are not involved and actually granting the governor the power over life and death. A power that is sure to be struck down but in the mean time, right to lifers are holding this woman hostage to their cause simply because her parents felt gypped out of ten thousand dollars.

[CamEdwards]

Of course Judge Greer says there's a conflict of interest on both sides, but I notice you don't talk about that. I also notice that you don't mention this quote from Schiavo's dad:


Bob Schindler said Saturday that the initial argument was more about how Schiavo reneged on promises to pay for continued therapy for their daughter, not about payment to the Schindlers.

"Felos wants to make it look like a money issue," Schindler said. "Our motivation was to make sure Terri would get the proper care."

He points to a July 1993 letter he wrote to Schiavo, in which he pleads with to honor a commitment to pay for Schiavo's continued care.

"Even if I'm as bad as (Felos) paints me, that's no excuse for not treating Terri," Schindler said.


I read this story this way: The Schindlers thought they deserved some money that Schiavo was awarded. He didn't think so. They argued. Eventually he not only refused to pay the parents, he refused to pay for Schiavo's rehabilitation. That's when the Schindler's stepped in to save their daughter's life.

I don't really see how this is all about money for the parents, and it most certainly isn't about the money for the tens of thousands of people who wrote the governor of Florida asking that Terry Schiavo not be starved to death.

[Axxon]

Well, I printed the URL to the entire article so I didn't feel the need to specifically mention every facet of the article. Of course, the judges quote I used did say "creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides." which can't really be conisdered too prejudicial to either party nor could my sum up "Who knows what really might have been had money not poisoned those around her." but anyway.

Here's something you can't deny though. It says Michael used the entirety of his loss of consortium ( the money they wanted half of ) for the trust which was set up for Terri's care. Her loving and caring parents, who want nothing but for Terri to get the best care didn't want that. They wanted the money for themselves. Like it or not that paints them as hypocrites now as they sued for this cash long before the decision was made to cut off her feeding.

FIVE YEARS BEFORE.

Also, they paint ( as did you ) him as an opportunist and take shots at his new woman who has his children but until they got shafted out of the cash they supported his relationship with her. It doesn't paint them in a good light.

As for the 10's of thousands who wrote, they are what really bothers me. None of them really cares about Terri. Theyt have their own agenda and are willing to use this woman to further it without regard to how it hurts her or her wishes. I just can't see this as a good thing.

Hey, I've stated numerous times that starving her to death bothers me and I wish there was a better solution but I'll be damned if I'm going to write a letter purporting to care about Terri and at the same time taking a crap on her final wishes just so I can feel better that they're not doing something I personally don't like or even better to reassure myself how moral I am by doing the "right thing" even if it hurts the person I'm doing it to.

Finally, your take about his refusal to pay for the rehabilitation is unsupported by anything except by the words of the parents who have been anything but forthcoming and honest. I suppose the myraid of doctors that have treated her and testified as such over the years are all lying just to get some of the now nonexistant money??

Or, could the Schindlers, knowing they couldn't get a dime of their "hard earned" blood money, want to see what little money was left frittered away by junk science and miracle cures so they could somehow make sure that if they didn't get any, he couldn't get any?? Seems likely since the only problem they had with him or her "treatment" for 5 years was that he WANTED the money to go for the treatment not to the parents.

[CamEdwards]

-they were asking for $10,000 out of a million.

-the fact that her parents had no problem with him dating has nothing to do with the fact that I have a problem with him dating. Also, note the father said he expected at some point Shiavo would divorce his wife and move on. I have no doubt they wanted him to move on... they probably just thought he'd have the decency (for both women) to divorce his wife before knocking up another woman.

-how on earth do you know the agenda of the tens of thousands of people who've tried to stop Shiavo's death? Talk about arrogance.

-the money (as you know because you read the article) was divided two ways: $700,000 for T.S.S.'s care and $300,000 to Michael Shiavo for loss of consortium. That $300,000 wasn't going to be used for Terri Schindler Shiavo's care regardless of any lawsuit.

You still think the parents are money grubbing bastards, and I still think they're not. But thanks for pointing out the article.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
-they were asking for $10,000 out of a million.

-the fact that her parents had no problem with him dating has nothing to do with the fact that I have a problem with him dating. Also, note the father said he expected at some point Shiavo would divorce his wife and move on. I have no doubt they wanted him to move on... they probably just thought he'd have the decency (for both women) to divorce his wife before knocking up another woman.

-how on earth do you know the agenda of the tens of thousands of people who've tried to stop Shiavo's death? Talk about arrogance.

-the money (as you know because you read the article) was divided two ways: $700,000 for T.S.S.'s care and $300,000 to Michael Shiavo for loss of consortium. That $300,000 wasn't going to be used for Terri Schindler Shiavo's care regardless of any lawsuit.

You still think the parents are money grubbing bastards, and I still think they're not. But thanks for pointing out the article.


Point one and four are related and a point of contention. He was adding the $300k from loss of consortium to the $700k. I get this from the article. It's a biggie to me. Michael didn't not give them $10k he also denied himself the $290k that no one would have begrudged him. Reread the article. This was why he turned them down. Again, according to the article.

Point two. No, they have attacked him on this point too. They are using this point actively against him. If you have come to your conclusion separate from their assertations fair enough but they are using this as a weapon now and it's why he addressed it in this article.

Point three.Fair enough point but again it's not simple arrogance. I pointed out last time we brought this up that I saw a sign by one of the "supporters" who was in a crowd that said something to the effect "Let God decide who lives or dies, not man" but they are asking for the exact opposite in this case. I asked your opinion on this then but you deferred. I ask again.

Does this not look like the knee jerk reaction to a situation from a "right to lifer" vs a considered opinion by a concerned observer? Granted, assigning this sign to the thousands who wrote is arrogance but this sign wasn't exactly on an island it was in a crowd. Couldn't someone have said, "you know, about that sign, it's not really what we're talking about here." ?

Lastly, I don't think my opinion is as cut and dried as that and I'm sure yours isn't as cut and dried either. I honestly had considered the parents more well meaning and misguided than greedy until I read this article. I states as much last time we wrote on this.

This is an interesting article and it does illustrate that money may well be a part of the equation though and it answers your previous question of how the courts could possibly side with Michael time and again. Judge Greer obviously thought it was a major factor.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Axxon
I saw a sign by one of the "supporters" who was in a crowd that said something to the effect "Let God decide who lives or dies, not man" but they are asking for the exact opposite in this case.

I think you are missing one large point here. You say that the person carrying that sign is asking for man to decide who lives or dies over God, despite protesting the opposite. What you are missing is that in the minds of many protesting, removing the tube would be man deciding who lives and dies, whereas to you, it seems that putting it in is man doing the deciding. The sign can likely be taken at face value - the protestor thinks removing her tube is man deciding she dies, and you disagree with that, but that does not mean the "supporter" is asking for the opposite of what his sign says.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Samdari
I think you are missing one large point here. You say that the person carrying that sign is asking for man to decide who lives or dies over God, despite protesting the opposite. What you are missing is that in the minds of many protesting, removing the tube would be man deciding who lives and dies, whereas to you, it seems that putting it in is man doing the deciding. The sign can likely be taken at face value - the protestor thinks removing her tube is man deciding she dies, and you disagree with that, but that does not mean the "supporter" is asking for the opposite of what his sign says.

Close, but I'm saying that she is currently being kept alive by mans will. At this point either the removal or the keeping in of the tube is going to be mans will. By keeping the tube inserted though mans will is more compelling an issue though. It's the old science vs religion issue and in this case without mans intervention she'd most likely be dead already. That's what the fight is about as I see it in this light.

If God can enforce his will either way then the entire tube issue is moot. Keep it, remove it, doesn't matter. But those who are asking for God to decide are making a statement that they feel it necessary for man to continue intervening for God's will to be done. They seem to have doubts about God's power vs mans usurping nature via science.

If the tube is removed however, and Terri lives then the result is much less disputable. To me it's a question of imperfect human faith mixed with real human emotions. I consider it a very interesting thing to see play out but if I were putting all my eggs in God's basket I'd respect his decision and his ability to enforce it. I'd trust i him and leave it in his hands. He could ask me for my help as a sign of faith but to ask others to help him enforce his will seems as if you're doubting his ability to do just that.

[CamEdwards]

of course, trying to teach her to feed herself is an option, but not one that Michael Shiavo is willing to undertake.

As far as the parents and their reaction to Shiavo dating... you did note that the father said at some point he expected him to actually, you know... divorce his wife so he could marry someone else, rather than staying married and fathering children while in an adulterous relationship. No, I can't imagine why the Schindlers would now be angry with Schiavo for his relationship with another woman.

Also, read the story again. The money isn't gone because it's been spent on Terry Schiavo. The money's gone because of the legal fight over Terry Schiavo. As the paper says:

"Bob Schindler said Saturday that the initial argument was more about how Schiavo reneged on promises to pay for continued therapy for their daughter, not about payment to the Schindlers.

"Felos wants to make it look like a money issue," Schindler said. "Our motivation was to make sure Terri would get the proper care."

He points to a July 1993 letter he wrote to Schiavo, in which he pleads with to honor a commitment to pay for Schiavo's continued care.

"Even if I'm as bad as (Felos) paints me, that's no excuse for not treating Terri," Schindler said."

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
of course, trying to teach her to feed herself is an option, but not one that Michael Shiavo is willing to undertake.

Likely they haven't tried sacrificing a live chicken to appease the voodoo gods either. I'm not being flippant. You mentioned something that seems simple but doctor after doctor, including the court appointed ones, have said it would be futile. I'm not saying I wouldn't try myself but I won't judge someone who faced with an avalanche of evidence saying it would be futile for not trying.


As far as the parents and their reaction to Shiavo dating... you did note that the father said at some point he expected him to actually, you know... divorce his wife so he could marry someone else, rather than staying married and fathering children while in an adulterous relationship. No, I can't imagine why the Schindlers would now be angry with Schiavo for his relationship with another woman.

Weak dude. If Michael is truly interested in following his wife's final wishes then he can't divorce her or he gives up any ability he has to help her.

[B]
Also, read the story again. The money isn't gone because it's been spent on Terry Schiavo. The money's gone because of the legal fight over Terry Schiavo.

OK, seeing that Terri's wishes for her own existence are followed isn't helping her?? She felt that the state she is in is worse than death and she didn't want it. Helping her ease this situation is helping Terri. Futilely trying therapies that you've been told are useless and prolonging what your wife has told you is agony ISN'T helping her. He waited five years man. She didn't get any better.


As the paper says:

"Bob Schindler said Saturday that the initial argument was more about how Schiavo reneged on promises to pay for continued therapy for their daughter, not about payment to the Schindlers.

I can see it. That's why the lawsuit was about giving them 10k out of the money he was getting for his grief.


"Felos wants to make it look like a money issue," Schindler said. "Our motivation was to make sure Terri would get the proper care."

He points to a July 1993 letter he wrote to Schiavo, in which he pleads with to honor a commitment to pay for Schiavo's continued care.

Yep, I'd consider one letter in five years as unimpeachable evidence that they had her care as their primary concern.


"Even if I'm as bad as (Felos) paints me, that's no excuse for not treating Terri," Schindler said."

Unless Terri absolutely didn't want that to occur. That's my entire point. Michael isn't a saint but he really is the only one who seems to be willing to fight for what Terri wanted. It's not what her family wanted and that's the problem. That's why I support him.

BTW, this article is slanted against the Schindlers and it's pretty hard for you to argue their goodness from it.


Terri's site. (http://www.terrisfight.org/)

This is her family's web page. It's got a lot more on their side and it tends to contradict some of what's in the article. I feel it needs to be added to this discussion. Enjoy the reading. I've been reading it for a long while now.

BTW, the info I had on the money payouts was on there but I can't find it this am. Either they've discontinued this or I just can't find it.

[Axxon]

dola

I don't mind this discussion on an intellectual level but I'm finding it hard to attack people who don't deserve being attacked. I pointed out some alternatives I feel needed to be discussed but I don't really judge the Schindlers.

I like them. If I wanted to live at all costs I'd love them as my family, but I wouldn't and they'd be a nightmare to me as family. I didn't bring up this article to impune their reputation but rather to attack their attacks on Michael who I also feel is acting from the heart.

It's a sorry situation all the way around.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Axxon
Likely they haven't tried sacrificing a live chicken to appease the voodoo gods either. I'm not being flippant. You mentioned something that seems simple but doctor after doctor, including the court appointed ones, have said it would be futile. I'm not saying I wouldn't try myself but I won't judge someone who faced with an avalanche of evidence saying it would be futile for not trying.



Weak dude. If Michael is truly interested in following his wife's final wishes then he can't divorce her or he gives up any ability he has to help her.



OK, seeing that Terri's wishes for her own existence are followed isn't helping her?? She felt that the state she is in is worse than death and she didn't want it. Helping her ease this situation is helping Terri. Futilely trying therapies that you've been told are useless and prolonging what your wife has told you is agony ISN'T helping her. He waited five years man. She didn't get any better.



I can see it. That's why the lawsuit was about giving them 10k out of the money he was getting for his grief.



Yep, I'd consider one letter in five years as unimpeachable evidence that they had her care as their primary concern.



Unless Terri absolutely didn't want that to occur. That's my entire point. Michael isn't a saint but he really is the only one who seems to be willing to fight for what Terri wanted. It's not what her family wanted and that's the problem. That's why I support him.

BTW, this article is slanted against the Schindlers and it's pretty hard for you to argue their goodness from it.


Terri's site. (http://www.terrisfight.org/)

This is her family's web page. It's got a lot more on their side and it tends to contradict some of what's in the article. I feel it needs to be added to this discussion. Enjoy the reading. I've been reading it for a long while now.

BTW, the info I had on the money payouts was on there but I can't find it this am. Either they've discontinued this or I just can't find it.

Actually, I think I've done a fairly good job of arguing the points, even based on the article.

You take it as a matter of faith that Michael Shiavo is acting on what his wife wanted. Were you there the night they were watching a movie and she said "boy, if I'm ever in a coma, don't let me just lie there, okay?" Because that's the only time she said it. It's Michael Shiavo's word that she said it.

As to your avalance of doctors... check the facts. For every doctor that's testified about the futility of further treatment, there have been others who've testified that it could serve some benefit.

My brother was in a horrific car accident that left him in a coma for several months (granted, not a decade). The doctors told us that he would never survive, that he was brain dead, etc. Eight years later he's getting remarried (because his first wife did leave him, he's a father to his kids... his life is somewhat normal).

You say Michael Shiavo is doing what his wife wanted, but you're using his words to make that argument. I say Terry Schiavo's parents are doing what she would have wanted, and I'm using their words. Are you starting to see the futility of this argument?

BTW, your statement about the money: OK, seeing that Terri's wishes for her own existence are followed isn't helping her?? She felt that the state she is in is worse than death and she didn't want it. Helping her ease this situation is helping Terri. Futilely trying therapies that you've been told are useless and prolonging what your wife has told you is agony ISN'T helping her. He waited five years man. She didn't get any better.
----------

The money was to be spent on her rehabilitation and care, period. Please don't try and rationalize it. Same with the fact that he's committing adultery and fathering children with a woman other than his wife. Your excuse of "well, he can't divorce her" is what's weak (in my ever so humble opinion). If he loves her enough to try and do her wishes... he could at least honor his marriage vows.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Actually, I think I've done a fairly good job of arguing the points, even based on the article.

You take it as a matter of faith that Michael Shiavo is acting on what his wife wanted. Were you there the night they were watching a movie and she said "boy, if I'm ever in a coma, don't let me just lie there, okay?" Because that's the only time she said it. It's Michael Shiavo's word that she said it.

As to your avalance of doctors... check the facts. For every doctor that's testified about the futility of further treatment, there have been others who've testified that it could serve some benefit.

My brother was in a horrific car accident that left him in a coma for several months (granted, not a decade). The doctors told us that he would never survive, that he was brain dead, etc. Eight years later he's getting remarried (because his first wife did leave him, he's a father to his kids... his life is somewhat normal).

You say Michael Shiavo is doing what his wife wanted, but you're using his words to make that argument. I say Terry Schiavo's parents are doing what she would have wanted, and I'm using their words. Are you starting to see the futility of this argument?



Yep, and as I said I have a cousin who was in a similar situation and she recovered? and the effort only ruined many lives. Still, I love my cousin and her kids, every last one of them.

Oh, and she never expressed any desire in re life support so it's a different situation as I'm aware.

The reason I believe Michael is I know my cousins parents. I can relate to parents. This isn't something parents are prepared to hear about their kids. They can't accept that their child would rather die than become their ornament. I accept that.

IF Terri wanted to die then they are wrong. Michael has had and does have options so if she said she wanted to live he'd have less of a reason to try and kill her.

Her parents have absolutely every reason to deny and not believe that these were her wishes. They have to, they're family and they never heard it.

Given that this is no longer a financial issue then the only reason Michael would persist is to hurt them and the only reason they'd persist is that they don't want to lose their daughter.

I can totally accept that they wouldn't want to lose their daughter and he'd want to honor his marriage. What's the alternative??

He so wants to hurt them because of an action ten years ago that he'd refuse to move on and make their life hell?? Whats his payoff? That's what has never been answered to my satisfaction. What's his payoff??

Money? Nope. Moving on?? Nope. Cam, what does he gain by fighting this if it isn't his wife's wishes?? I really want to have an answer here.

PS: did I write avalance?? I saw it and thought I'd edited it or did you make the same mistake I did?

As for the Schindler's "experts" why has every court rejected their testimony? Could it be because they either haven't had enough time to properly evaluate Terri or is it because they are crackpot agenda pushers??

The answer is both and yet every Michael doctor has unimpeachable credentials. The Schindlers are grasping at straws. As loving family members this is to be expected.

God, I'm happy for you and your brother. I really am. The world can't be based on his case though any more than it can be based on my cousins. It does color our worlds though. I respect that and am glad we've been able to be able to argue base on experience and yet not try and tear each other apart. n

This isn't the norm on the internet is it??? :)


Lastly, yes, I arrogantly felt I was winning the argument but humbly felt it was due to the slant of the argument. I offered info that does dispute a lot of the "facts" in the argument.

You feel you were winning and it may be so. Still, I can't argue with more information than my worthy debate foe without feeling guilty. I'm more about the discussion than winning so I offered what I considered more compelling ammunition.

That's why I'd never make it as a lawyer. :D

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards


The money was to be spent on her rehabilitation and care, period. Please don't try and rationalize it. Same with the fact that he's committing adultery and fathering children with a woman other than his wife. Your excuse of "well, he can't divorce her" is what's weak (in my ever so humble opinion). If he loves her enough to try and do her wishes... he could at least honor his marriage vows.

Only separated this because I could see how the above fit one post and this one deserved another.

I've already addressed the divorce issue. I want you to answer this question directly.

If this is weak then what is his alternative?? Either remain in a marriage that offers no hope for any marital consumption or move on??

I have always tended to believe the former but surprisingly my entire family accepted that my cousins boyfriend moved on even though he caused the accident. I have always held myself to a higher standard. I have come to accept that I may be wrong.

This is why I find your point ironic to me as this is really how I feel too but I've been told I'm weird and this view only reinforced that opinion. It's nigh impossible to argue against what I truly believe in but at the same time it's hard to consider an opinion that is so against the norm in my opinion of the person involved.

You're married. If this happened to your wife ( lets forget the legal issues but simply consider the sexual ), would you stay with her for life as your vows clearly obligated you to? Would you "divorce" her which to me is simply too selfish to be considered acceptable to me or would you try and get her plug pulled??

I take my vows seriously and couldn't do the quick divorce. Period. I despise my one friend who did just that. I understand it but I can't accept it. In my mind, vows are made of sterner stuff.

I can't even consider the "pull the plug" as an acceptable solution but maybe that's why I have so much trouble disparaging Michael.


Maybe I'm too naive??

Naive and cynical. Pretty sorry combination. :)

[Axxon]

dola,

my friend didn't "pull the plug". He simply didn't marry her and basically abandoned his fiancee of seven years. I didn't mean that he'd be that cruel but he did leave a very good, very decent woman in the lurch and she didn't deserve that.